LabVIEW
What's new in LabVIEW 2016
@Intaris wrote:If I understood correctly, we'll be able to implement our own versions in order to extend to the existing functionality.
Shane
Thanks Shane,
Interesting with extendability/overrides in a BD primitive, I like the idea. Power to the people! 
Wouldn't it have been nice to have those asynch channels and other references in another layer/dimension of the BD, though? 
Roger
@User002 wrote:Is it just me, but it surely seems that the LabVIEW development process and time to market is awfully slow at NI?
It is more like their efforts are diverted elsewhere. Have a good look at the Technology Preview that NI released. That is from years of trying to rearchitecture the LabVIEW IDE because the current IDE is preventing NI from making the advancements they want. There is also the effort of making it more open so that the community can add to the product. Rest assured, NI is putting a lot of effort into LabVIEW. It just isn't seen by the layman due to NI's secrecy. I hope I didn't say too much here...
@crossrulz wrote:It is more like their efforts are diverted elsewhere. Have a good look at the Technology Preview that NI released. That is from years of trying to rearchitecture the LabVIEW IDE because the current IDE is preventing NI from making the advancements they want. There is also the effort of making it more open so that the community can add to the product. Rest assured, NI is putting a lot of effort into LabVIEW. It just isn't seen by the layman due to NI's secrecy. I hope I didn't say too much here...
I can only base my view on what I actually percieve. It ain't overwhelmingly much to tell the truth. The tech preview was a slick demo that even bugged out. Will it run well and scale? Does it need another decade of work before it becomes viable? When can we expect the 1.0 release? Will it run on all targets, does it compile to the FPGA, how about drivers? Bugs, crashes, performance? I reckon it is a pre-pre-alpha release.
It is indeed odd if LabVIEW isn't a priority at NI, to me it sounds like the typical excuses one would hear from devs in classical top down corporate settings. But on the other hand, what do I know.
@User002 wrote:
I reckon it is a pre-pre-alpha release.
It is indeed odd if LabVIEW isn't a priority at NI, to me it sounds like the typical excuses one would hear from devs in classical top down corporate settings. But on the other hand, what do I know.
I wouldn't call this pre-alpha. I'd call the internal builds NI had 3+ years ago pre-alpha. I'd call the 3 years after that where builds were provided to external companies alpha, and I'd call the Tech Preview beta.
As for LabVIEW not being a priority at NI. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but looking at feature releases in the last few years I understand why. During the keynote shown on Wednesday Shelley showed many NI products that are to use this same underlying architecture and framework. NI isn't just making LabVIEW better, I suspect NI wants to make all products better by leveraging the same technology. One example given is how many NI products have a graph, and they all look different. Wouldn't it be nice if there were one unified platform that LabVIEW could build off of, but also MAX (or whatever) TestStand, Measurement Stuido, Measurement Express (is that a thing?), VeriStand, myDAQ and myRIO academic software, and others. Don't get me wrong I want my LabVIEW and I want it NOW! But the message I get from NI is they are investing in themselves the right way, and designing and implementing from the ground up. Only time will tell if this is a mistake. Maybe we should call the LabVIEW we use today the beta? (Please NI marketing don't quote me on this it's a joke...or is it?)
@Hooovahh wrote:Don't get me wrong I want my LabVIEW and I want it NOW! But the message I get from NI is they are investing in themselves the right way, and designing and implementing from the ground up. Only time will tell if this is a mistake. Maybe we should call the LabVIEW we use today the beta? (Please NI marketing don't quote me on this it's a joke...or is it?)
I agree, but here's the thing. Why get into such an endeavour and stretch themselves thin with little to show for in basically a decade of time and money invested. I mean, what was a reasonable idea back 10 years ago might be quite obsolete today. For example the choice of deprecated WPF as a UI framework.
Technology and paradigms move on. I would guess it was a slight case of hubris caused by a dash of elitism and arrogance that now are beginning to rear its ugly truth.
But don't get me wrong, I too want a better LabVIEW development environment and IDE NOW! Not just a polised block diagram, front panel and some fancy vector graphics. That's basically a polished version of the "tech demo" which we have been running for the last decades.
@User002 wrote:
@Hooovahh wrote:Don't get me wrong I want my LabVIEW and I want it NOW! But the message I get from NI is they are investing in themselves the right way, and designing and implementing from the ground up. Only time will tell if this is a mistake. Maybe we should call the LabVIEW we use today the beta? (Please NI marketing don't quote me on this it's a joke...or is it?)
I agree, but here's the thing. Why get into such an endeavour and stretch themselves thin with little to show for in basically a decade of time and money invested. I mean, what was a reasonable idea back 10 years ago might be quite obsolete today. For example the choice of deprecated WPF as a UI framework.
Technology and paradigms move on. I would guess it was a slight case of hubris caused by a dash of elitism and arrogance that now are beginning to rear its ugly truth.
But don't get me wrong, I too want a better LabVIEW development environment and IDE NOW! Not just a polised block diagram, front panel and some fancy vector graphics. That's basically a polished version of the "tech demo" which we have been running for the last decades.
That would be LabVIEW 2014 when the #1 reason of 5 was that they had separate icons for the 32 and 64-bit versions. Uncomfortably close to the truth. 😉
(I don't think NI will ever live that one down.)
